It’s a bit difficult to see how this piece of information is relevant to a philosophical debate. The idea here is to challenge yourself with interesting, surprising, unexpected, provoking viewpoints, test your own positions and arguments, identify each side’s strengths and weaknesses, examine the relevant issues deeper than a populist lawmaker or an Instagram activist would. The essence of a philosophical debate is in its journey - you want to experience an intellectual roller-coaster and come out of it hardened and with a broader understanding of the issue (at least that’s why I watch BiaV). The idea here is not necessarily to advocate for or reinforce an existing political viewpoint (there are plenty of other platforms for that). There’s a reason why they begin every show with a thought experiment (i.e. they’re not debating an actual, existing policy or law). As for the logical fallacy (ad hominem), I would like to challenge you and ask you this: why can’t a dude with a certain view on sex or slavery have a view on migration? What specifically precludes him from having a stance or being able to propose a thought experiment on this issue? I hope you stay on this channel and learn together with all of us. If you do find some topic uncomfortable, why not counter the guest by presenting your view on it in the comments? If it’s really such a low-hanging fruit, maybe you can prove the guest wrong! And to the boys - thank you, interesting show as always.
victim21 ~ Long-winded, hyper-disingenuous responses notwithstanding, the answer is yes: it's the same 'dude'. Imo, at least hear the interview(s) in question to form an opinion not poured from a jug. In that vein, I believe that, as cruel, grotesque ideas go these days, his are comparatively mild rebukes to decency - but they are still that. (The ones you mentioned specifically.) It should be entirely possible to state such things without being tossed in the pit with shrieking fundamentalists who also insist on things that, theoretically and if enacted, harm others. Fascinating planet, ain't it. Paz y luz
We 👏 want 👏 more 👏 Kershnar 👏
Love episodes with Stephen, always great discussion
Isn't this the dude that defended adults dating children and slavery?
It’s a bit difficult to see how this piece of information is relevant to a philosophical debate. The idea here is to challenge yourself with interesting, surprising, unexpected, provoking viewpoints, test your own positions and arguments, identify each side’s strengths and weaknesses, examine the relevant issues deeper than a populist lawmaker or an Instagram activist would. The essence of a philosophical debate is in its journey - you want to experience an intellectual roller-coaster and come out of it hardened and with a broader understanding of the issue (at least that’s why I watch BiaV).
The idea here is not necessarily to advocate for or reinforce an existing political viewpoint (there are plenty of other platforms for that). There’s a reason why they begin every show with a thought experiment (i.e. they’re not debating an actual, existing policy or law).
As for the logical fallacy (ad hominem), I would like to challenge you and ask you this: why can’t a dude with a certain view on sex or slavery have a view on migration? What specifically precludes him from having a stance or being able to propose a thought experiment on this issue?
I hope you stay on this channel and learn together with all of us. If you do find some topic uncomfortable, why not counter the guest by presenting your view on it in the comments? If it’s really such a low-hanging fruit, maybe you can prove the guest wrong!
And to the boys - thank you, interesting show as always.
That's "Stephen Kershnar, P.h.D", to you, sir.
victim21 ~ Long-winded, hyper-disingenuous responses notwithstanding, the answer is yes: it's the same 'dude'.
Imo, at least hear the interview(s) in question to form an opinion not poured from a jug.
In that vein, I believe that, as cruel, grotesque ideas go these days, his are comparatively mild rebukes to decency - but they are still that.
(The ones you mentioned specifically.)
It should be entirely possible to state such things without being tossed in the pit with shrieking fundamentalists who also insist on things that, theoretically and if enacted, harm others.
Fascinating planet, ain't it.
Paz y luz
what is the name of the yellow art behind Jasons head 😅
It's a piece by Ivy Grobler: www.behance.net/ivyillustr933f?locale=fi_FI
Have you considered bringing on bryan caplan
We request and/or demand a Caplan/Kershnar debate!
Gosh, I hope it isn't my brain in a vat!